




\\ 



^-■1 





) 



SPEECH 



880 
D75 
opy 1 



fp 



V 



7^ 



OP 



lO-^lh -^ib 



HON. S:' U. DOWNS, OF LOUISIANA, 



ON THE BILL TO ESTABLISH 



A TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT IN OREGON. 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 3, 1848. 




WASHINGTON: 

PRlNTJBD AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OPtlCEt 

1848. 



M 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 



The Bill to establish a Territorial Government in Oregon being under consid- 
eration in the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole — 

Mr. DOWNS said: I am very sorry that the debate upon this bill, which 
was entirely unexpected to me at least, should have taken the turn it has this 
morning. I supposed yesterday that there was a general understanding — it 
being that there was a sufficient number of Senators in favor of the bill, with 
one modification, to secure its passage — that this twelfth section should be 
stricken out. This was the understanding of the majority of the committee. 
The gentleman who acts in behalf of the committee, in the absence of the 
chairman, assented to that course. I am very sorry he has changed his course, 
and has this morning withdrawn his motion to strikeout the twelfth section. I 
agree with the honorable Senator from Missouri [Mr. Benton] that in acting 
upon this bill it is wholly unnecessary to introduce the question of slavery. A 
bill so important as this should be passed without raising, unnecessarily, that 
vexed question. I believe I may say I regretted its introduction as much as 
any member of this body. I wish to be understood upon this subject. I hold 
not extreme opinions on the extension of slavery into new territory. I stop a 
good deal short of the opinion, it is well known, which some gentlemen upon 
this floor entertain. I do not choose to pursue it as far at present as some 
gentlemen do. I have been contending for moderation, forbearance, for no 
denunciations, for standing where we have always heretofore stood. I have 
never contended, that by operation of the Constitution of the United States in 
a new territory, slavery necessarily existed. I have assumed no such position. 
That is a question which has not been much discussed. I do not choose to 
commit myself fully upon it. But I may say that no man up to this time ever 
heard me express a desire to be exonerated from an expression of my opinions. 
I do not ask it now. But it requires further elucidation. My present impres- 
sions are these: lam willing to leave the question v/here I believe a large 
portion of the people of the United States are willing that it should be left, viz: 
with the people of the Territories themselves. Hence it was that I hoped this 
bill would be permitted to pass without requiring the express declaration of 
Congress as to the position they will take upon this exciting question. Now, 
upon what right, or upon what ground, can those who hold a different opinion 
object to this course ? According to their own principles, they ought not to 
object for a moment. Their first principle is, that by the Constitution and laws 
as they exist, in new Territories slavery cannot exist. It is not contended that 
it was ever established there ; it cannot, therefore, exist, according to their own 
doctrine. The whole weight of argument seems to be against those who insist 
that Congress should now interpose. Where is the necessity, if their principle 
is correct? But in this case it is not left a blank. The people of Oregon 



have moved in regard to the subject. They have passed an ordinance, made 
a provision, which I think is tantamount to the amendment proposed by the 
Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Hale,] prohibiting slavery, as though 
there was a doubt about the existence of the prohibition there, or that we 
supposed they had provided for its establishment. Does striking out the 
twelfth section interfere with it in any way ? J\ot at all. Not in the least. I 
was astonished at the strange position assumed by the honorable Senator from 
North Carolina, [Mr. Badger,] that unless this proposition was adopted, all 
their laws would be abrogated. It was sufficiently answered by the honorable 
Senators from Texas and South Carolina, [Mr. Rusk and Mr. Butler.] But 
I presume there are very few in this Senate who entertain that opinion. Those 
laws were adopted in Oregon under extraordinary circumstances. This Gov- 
ernment had failed to extend its laws over them. It was necessary that they 
should have laws for their government. It is perfectly immaterial whether the 
act recognize them or not ;. they were adopted because they had no other laws 
there. They will, so far as they are incompatible with the Constitution and 
laws, cease when our laws are extended over them. I know not by what 
authority, except by consent of the people, they have any operation at all even 
now; but whatever authority they have will remain, it is certain — whatever 
you enact here — until your new system goes into operation ; and then, when 
not inconsistent with it. 

Why, then, should those who contend that slavery ought not to be extended 
to Oregon raise this question here ? In the first place, according to their own 
principle, there can be no danger of what they wish to avoid. In the next 
place, they have a positive enactment of the Provisional Government forbidding 
it. In addition to that, there cannot be a man who believes for a moment that 
slavery can exist there. You cannot induce a man holding slaves to go there 
with his slaves. It would be perfectly useless. Everybody seems to admit 
that. Upon these three grounds, then, the case stands clearly against us. You 
have it all your own way. And yet it is insisted here now without object, and 
therefore insultingly, that this measure must be rammed down our throats nolens 
volens! Is this the spirit of brotherly love, compromise, and concession, in 
which our glorious Union originated ? Could it have grown up under the 
influence of such feelings? Will it last while such are indulged? These are 
thoughts on which we ought all to ponder and to pause. I have never yet 
despaired of the Union ; I hope I never shall. I am not disposed to brood 
over evils that may never come; but such a measure, at such a time, under 
such circumstances — offered voluntarily as a boon one day and snatched back 
the next — unnecessary, not practical, as useless to you as the pound of flesh to 
the Jew, but death to us — is, it is painful to confess, no omen of good ! It 
cannot be contended that there is a necessity for it. 

Mr. President, some gentlemen may have been surprised at the concessions 
of the honorable Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] the other day, 
when he withdrew his amendment; but they see now, I have no doubt, that 
the gentleman understood what he was doing. Whatever may have been con- 
sidered as to concession in the withdrawal of that amendment at the time, it is 
evident now that the question of the Wilmot Proviso is as clearly and distinctly 
involved in the twelfth section of this bill as in the amendment. And when 
the amendment of the honorable Senator from Florida was also withdrawn, it 
was understood that the bill should be passed without either; but now the head 
of the committee has. abandoned that position and withdrawn his amendment, 
and I regret to say we are back in the same position in which we were before 



the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire was withdrawn. And 
we have no choice. It amounts to the same thing. I do not think this ought 
to be pressed upon us, under the circumstances, at this time. 

I had no idea of saying a word upon this subject. Upon this, as upon most 
other questions, my disposition is to hear, and to be informed, not to speak ; but 
I was so mucii astonished at the course taken tliis morning, I felt it to be so 
unpropitious a course to produce harmony on this subject, so calculated to lead 
to evil consequences, that I cotld not resist the inclination I felt to raise my 
voice against it. I do not intend to enter into the general discussion upon this 
subject. 1 believe the die Is cast. Gentlemen see that this question must be 
met, and perhaps it may as well be met here as anywhere else. It seems to 
be the necessary tendency of the proceeding of to-day; still, at this stage of the 
debate, I am not disposed to enter into the discussion of the subject at large, 
although there were some remarks made by the Senator from Connecticut 
[Mr. NiLEs] that are so extraordinary, that I would consider myself derelict 
in duty if I were to permit them to pass without notice. But here, be it 
remarked, as in all other phases of this matter, we act on the defensive. I shall 
not attempt to quote the precise words of the Senator, but merely state the 
substance of some of the points made by him. As I understand, one of his 
positions is, that the power of this Government rests with the South; that 
there is a preponderance of power and most of the high offices held there, and 
that that power is maintained by the institution of slavery. Now, I do not 
think there is any cause for a complaint of this kind. I do not believe that it 
ever entered into the designs or thoughts of the people of the South, that this 
predominance in relation to public offices should prevail in the South. If it 
has existed, it has arisen in the natural course of events, and not from any 
design on the part of the South. If it has happened that more distinguished 
officers of the Government' have come from the South, to say that lliey have 
been brought into office by the power of this slave question, is an assertion 
which has no foundation. But gentlemen say that thegreater number of Presi- 
dents have been taken from the South, and that it has been through the influ- 
ence of this slave question. You might as well say that the man wlio fought 
at the head of our army for our liberties in the revolution, and who was by 
acclamation placed in the Presidential chair afterwards, attained these honors 
by means of the slave question. Why was it that he was placed in the most 
distinguished position in the revolutionary war? Why was it that the sinews 
of war were placed in his hands? It was not by a caucus of Southern men, 
it was not upon Southern soil, but in the North. He did not assume his com- 
mand in the South. Did it enter into the conceptions of either the North or 
the South, that he was placed there because he came from the South ? Not 
at all, but because he had rendered more service to the country than any other 
man. He was consequently the people's choice. The same almost might be 
said of other Presidents and high offi.cers from the South. WHioever pretended 
that Jefferson, JMadison, Monroe, Jackson, Marshall, and others like them, 
owed their high places and honors to the slave power, as it is called ? W' ho 
thought of such a thing when they came into power? No, sir; blame us not if 
we have had more high offices than you ; it was not our fault ; we left these 
things to the natural course of the Government. If you had had the same or a 
greater preponderance we should not have complained ; but can }'0U not see 
other causes for this preponderance ? They may suggest themselves to all minds — 
the history of the country suggest them — but I shall not here state them. 
There are some things in this Government besides officers. I dislike to institute 



6 

comparisons; they are always offensive; but when such distinctions are raised, 
we must advert to them. We cannot, when we enter into battle, always 
^loose our own weapons; we must be governed in some degree by those with 
^hom we have to contend. When we are taunted with the insinuation that 
we are overrunning the Union with our slave power, it is, I must say, a most 
unmerited and unjust accusation. There are some things as valuable and as 
dear to us as office ; there are some things that come more directly home to 
our fire-sides than office, for instance, your comnierce and your trade: how does 
the comparison stand there? Take your inland trade. Wliat have been the 
operations between the North and the South? The North has grown up under 
the compromises of the Constitution, which have borne most oppressively in 
some cases upon the South. They have borne us to the dust, yet we have not 
complained. We have seen our substance taken away from us; we have seen the 
manufacturing resources of the North built up by the commerce and labor of the 
South ,* we have seen their ships in every part of the globe laden for the most 
part with the products of the South ; we have submitted to it all, and complained 
but little. We have depended upon the action and operation of the Constitution 
for a mitigation of these oppressions. It comes slowly and grudgingly when it 
comes at all. I believe I may safelysay for all theSouth,you may have every Pres- 
ident from the North, if he be a man in other respects as acceptable, and no man 
in the South will raise his voice against it. The people of the South do not come 
to this Qovernment for office; politicians may struggle and contend for offices, 
but I speak of the great body of the people of the South. They do not care a 
straw for your offices. You may have all your Presidents and your Secretaries 
for the next fifty years and we will never complain. We consider the Union 
a solenm compact ; we wish to abide by it, and not reproach our brethren of the 
North. The interests of the South, without the aid of this Union, might have 
gone on very well — I will not say as well ; but T will say that the South could 
have better dispensed with the Union than the North; and if I were disposed to 
pursue this question further, I would ask, what would a certain portion of the 
North be without the Union ? Where would have been employed the ships of 
Massachusetts and New Hampshire ? Where would have been the sale for 
their productions? Where the value that is given to every litde stream of 
water that flows through their sterile hills? Where the price that is paid for 
their granite and their ponds of ice, enriching them more than our fertile fields? 
Give all the wealth that has gone from the South to the North back again, and 
walls of granite, and palaces, and towns, would rise there also. Reproach us 
not, then, for any supposed advantage on account of the institution of slavery, 
or any other peculiar advaniaj:e we have under the Constitution. You have 
the best of the bargain, and you feel, and you know it. We do not complain, 
neither should you. 

Another position assumed by the gentleman is, that the question presented 
here is, whether we shall adopt slavery in Oregon or not — whether we shall 
carry it beyond the boundary where it already exists? I cannot, for my life, 
understand why the gentleman places it updn this footing. He says it has been 
the custom heretofore to leave the Territories where we find them, in regard to 
this subject. Do we propose to make any provision for the establishn)ent of 
slavery in Oregon? If I should come and ask to be permitted to take my 

* Mr. Webster, iti his speech at Faneuil H;'.1I, on the 6th of November, 1846, said: 

" Has not the Constitution given the people great prosperity? Has it not made our flag float 

in every sea on earth? Has it not fostered our manufactures? Where would Massachusetts 

liave been without it? Not the Massachusetts she now is." 






negroes to Oregon, then the case would be different. But who would ever 
think of conveying his slaves there? With what propriety can the gentleman 
say that slavery ever will exist there? I am willing to let the matter stand as 
it is — to say nothing about it. I do not wish to agitate the question. And I 
would go further, and enter into a compact, that not only upon this occasion, 
but upon no occasion hereafter, shall the question be agitated. I believe the 
whole South will agree with me. We have not introduced the subject. Our 
proper position on this question is defensive. All that we wish is, that we may 
not be encroached upon. Has the South contended that where slavery does 
not exist it shall be extended ? Never has any such proposition been set up 
by the South, and never will it be. But we were told yesterday by the Sena- 
tor from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] that the interests connected with slavery 
had produced the Mexican war; that the war grew out of the annexation of 
Texas ; and that annexation was t'le offspring of the slaveholding interest. 
When the history of this war comes to be written impartially, it cannot be 
imputed to the South. But 1 shall not go into that question now. It is not 
necessary to do so. When Texas first succeeded in establishing her independ- 
ence, when the question was first mooted of the annexation of Texas to the 
United States, I recollect distinctly that many of the people of my State took 
decided ground against it, in consequence of the danger that the agricultural 
interests of the State might be interfered with. That ground was taken by 
many of the presses of the country ; but, sir, this question of slavery began to 
be agitated at the North. You must recollect a most extraordinary occurrence 
that took place here in March, 1843, when a formal manifesto was sent out 
from the free States against annexation in relation to slavery, in which the most 
violent attack was made on the South.* Where was the necessity of thus 

*This appeal was preceded by the celebrated speech of Mr. J. Q,. Adams, •' from the 16th of 
June to the 7th of July, 1838," and of which he said, " the session of Congress closed before I 
could finish," and at Braintree, on the 17th of September, 1842; and by the speech of Mr. 
Webster in March, 1837. Here are the names signed to the address, and some extracts from 
it. Here was the gauntlet first thrown at us, as it is now; and because we took it up — because 
we were compelled in self-defence to take it up — we are accused of encroaching on other portions 
of the Union! 

The address itself is not to the people of the United States, but " To the People of the Fret 
States of the Union.'" It is dated on the 3d of March, 1843, and is signed by twenty-one abolition 
members of Congress, as follows: 

John Cluincy Adams, Seth M. Gates, William Slade, 

William B. Calhoun, Joshua R. Giddings, Shelbrook J. Andrews.; 

Nathaniel B. Borden, Thomas C. Crittenden, John Mattox, 

Christopher Morgan, Joshua M. Howard, Victory Birdseye,| 

Hiland Hall, David Bronson, Truman Smith, 

Thomas W. Williams, George N. Briggs, Charles Hudson, 

Staley N. Clark, Archibald L. Cinn, Thomas A. Tomlinson. 

This document ought to be read by every man of the South. I can now furnish only a few 
quotations. It commences — 

" We, the undersigned, in closing our duties to our constituents and our country, as members 
of the twenty-seventh Congress, feel bound to call your attention very briefly to the project long 
entertained by a portion of the people of these United States, still pertinaciously adhered to, and 
intended soon to be consummated — the annexation of Texas to this Union. 

" In the press of business incidental to the last days of the session of Congress, we have not 
time, did we deem it necessary, to enter upon a detailed statement of the reasons which force 
upon our minds the conviction that this project is by no means abandoned. That a large portion 
of the country interested in the continuance of domestic slavery and the slave trade in these 
United States have solemnly and unalterably determined that it shall be speedily carried into execu- 
tion. That by this admission, a new slave Territory and slave States, the undue ascendency 
of the slaveholding power in the Government shall be secured and riveted beyond all redemp- 
tion. 

" The open avowal of the Texans themselves, the frequent and anxious negotiations of our 
own Government, the resolutions of the various States of the Union, the ni^hierous declarations 
of members of Congress, the tone of the southern press, as well as the direct application of the 



\ 



8 



\ 



attracting the attention of the whole world, and agitating the subject at that 
time? Who commenced it? Was it the South ? 

Here was the commencement of the agitation — the South was all quiet. 
We left it to the decision of the people, whatever that decision might be. But 
for that proclamation, and the feelings to which it gave rise, annexation might 
have been long delayed. As it was then, so it will be again. We do not start 
the question ; but when the question is made, it is not the character of the South 
to pass it by. They will expostulate with their friends in the North ; they will 
do all that dignity and a sense of honor permit them to do to prevent it ; but 
when it comes, they will meet it as it ought ta be met. They will stand firm, 
as did our fathers in the Revolution. They have done so already, and it is 
their glory that they have done so. They would have been unworthy of their 
ancestors if they had not done it ; and I assure gentlemen they will do it still. 
But do not place us in a false position; it is your own aggression. Let us, 
then, bury the question, and swear upon the altar of the Constitution that it 
shall not be exhumed. If 'you will not do so, take your own course ; but I beg 
of you, when you come to speak of us and of our acts, speak of us as we are, 
and of our acts according to their true interpretation ; speak of us as being 
encroached upon and as resisting — not as endeavoring to carry our institutions 
where they are not acceptable. The South, willing as she is to make conces- 
sions, is not so fond of them as to make useless concessions. 



Texan Government, make it impossible for any man to doubt that annexation and a formation 
of several new slaveholding Slates, were originally the policy and design of the slaveholding 
States and the Executive of the nation. 

" Although perfectly aware that many important and controlling objections to annexation 
exist, aside from the question of slavery, we have, in this address, confined ourselves principally 
to that, because of its paramount importance, and because the advocates of annexation distinctly 
place it upon that ground." 

The address then proceeds to quote some opinions of Mr. Webster, in March, 1S37, as 
follows: 

" We all see that by whomsoever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slaveholding country; 
and I frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do anything which will extend the slavery of 
the African race on this continent, or add other slaveholding States to the tJnion. 

" In my opinion, the people of the United States will not consent to bring a new, vastly 
extensive, and slaveholding country, large enough for half a dozen Slates, into the Union. In 
MT OPINION, THEY OUGHT NOT TO CONSENT TO IT. Tliis Subject has not only attracted attention 
as a question of politics, but it has struck a deeper-toned chord. It has arrested the religious 
feeling of the country. It has taken strong hold on the consciences of men. 

" Me is a rash man, indeed, and little conversant with human nature, and especially has he a 
very erroneous estimate of the character of the people of this country, who supposes that a 
feeling of this kind is to be trifled with or despised. It will assuredly cause itself to be 
respected." 

He concludes by saying, " I see, therefore, no political necessity for the annexation of Texas 
to the Union. " 

The address from Mr. Adams and others then proceeds: 

" We hesitate not to say, that annexation, effected by any act or proceeding of the Federal 
Government, or any of its departments, would be identical with dissolution. And we not 
only assert that the people of the free States ought not to submit to it, but we say with confi- 
dence they loould not submit to it.'" 

It then concludes with the following appeal: 

" To prevent the success of this nefarious project — to preserve from such gross violation the 
Constitution of our country, adopted expressly to ^secure the blessings of liberty,'' and not the 
perpetuation of slavery, and to prevent the speedy and violent dissolution of the Union, we 
mvite you to unite, without distinction of party, in an immediate expression of your views on 
this subject, in such manner as you may deem best calculated to answer the end proposed." 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



017 185 197 n 





017 185 197 A 



